India's IWT abeyance action a move aimed at destroying Pakistan's agriculture, Senate body told
This was stated by Minister for Water Resources Moeen Wattoo during a meeting of National Assembly Standing Committee on Water Resources, presided over by the newly appointed Chairman Ahmad Atteeq Anwar.
'India's move is an attack on Pakistan's sovereignty. We will go to every extent to protect our existence,' he added. Secretary Water Resources, Syed Ali Murtaza informed the Committee that India has continuously violated the Indus Waters Treaty and is involved in tampering with water, adding that India also attacked Neelum-Jhelum Dam. India has been informed that it cannot unilaterally suspend the treaty.'
World Bank rebukes India over IWT, warns against unilateral moves
Neither there is any provision to put the Treaty in abeyance nor suspension, Treaty is invoked and if India does any violation, Pakistan will approach the appropriate forum for remedy. India is not talking with Pakistan under IWT for the last two years despite Pakistan's repeated requests, he added.
The Committee was briefed that the office of Pakistan Commissioner for Indus Waters deals with the implementation of the IWT 1960 signed with India on the sharing of the waters of Indus system on rivers. Under the provisions of the Treaty, the waters from three Eastern Rivers ( Ravi, Suutluj, Beas) have been allocated to India for her exclusive use, whereas the waters of three Western Rivers ( Indus, Jhelum and Chenab) have been allocated to Pakistan, however, from the three Western Rivers, India has been allowed to use water: (i) for domestic use; (ii) non-consumptive use; (iii) limited agriculture use (701,000 acres additional area permitted in India and Indian held part of Jammu and Kashmir in the basins of the three Western rivers i.e. Indus, Jhelum and Chenab);(iv) generation of hydroelectric power( the use is permitted subject to observance of design and operational criteria specified by the Treaty ; and (v) storage works (upper limit of storage has been fixed at 3.60 MAF divided among three Wester rivers basins).
Secretary Water Resources further stated that Pakistan has now increased monitoring of our rivers. Even if India builds dams, it cannot stop the flow of water. If India tampers with Pakistan's water, it will be considered an act of war, he said adding that on May 2nd and 3rd, there was a sudden rise in the water level of the Chenab River. Diversion of water from Baghliahar dam has also been noticed and this is being raised through proper channel.
'The water increased for 36 hours and then suddenly dropped — we are investigating this. If India is behind this, it would be a violation of the treaty. We are now collecting evidence and will take it to the relevant forum,' Secretary Water Resources maintained.
He said that there are three options in case of a violation: going to the court of arbitration, pursuing diplomatic action, and finally, the military option. India cannot divert water outside the basin. 'We will take India's violation to the international level and to arbitration,' said the Secretary of Water Resources.
Rai Hassan Nawaz, MNA inquired about the truth behind the allegations against former Indus Waters Commissioner Jamaat Ali Shah. The acting Indus Waters Commissioner, Mehar Ali Shah explained that the information in the media regarding Jamaat Ali Shah is not accurate.
He stated that an inquiry had been held against the former Indus Waters Commissioner, Jamaat Ali Shah after making him OSD, however, there is no evidence to support the allegations made against him regarding approaching the appropriate forum against one of the Indian projects.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Bano Bibi and Ehsanullah case: Panel concerned over non-submission of challan
ISLAMABAD: Special Committee on Gender Mainstreaming has expressed deep concern over non-submission of challan by the Balochistan Police in the recent honour killing case of Bano Bibi and Ehsanullah. The committee urged all the provincial governments to address gaps in the effective implementation of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences Relating to Honor Killings) Act, 2016' to prevent recurrence of such heinous incidents in future. The 13th meeting of the Special Committee was held under the chairpersonship of Dr Nafeesa Shah, MNA. During deliberations on the Balochistan incident, the additional IGP informed the committee that the case was reported nearly 30–40 days after the couple was shot dead on the orders of a tribal jirga prior to Eidul Adha. The victims, who had contracted a love marriage, were lured by their families under the pretext of a feast, where they were informed of the jirga's decision. Following the circulation of a video of the killings on social media, the Balochistan Government registered a terrorism case as no application had been submitted by relatives or locals. The committee noted with concern the delay in prosecution and emphasised the urgent need for the submission of challan. While acknowledging the arrest of several accused, the committee called for intensified efforts to apprehend the main culprit who remains at large. The additional chief secretary, Balochistan, was directed to further refine the tracking system for all the criminal cases—from FIR registration to conviction—and to present the mechanism in the committee's next meeting. Expressing alarm at the rising incidence of honour-based killings in the country, the committee stressed that the persistence of such crimes stems from lapses in the implementation of the 2016 Act. It urged all provinces to strengthen enforcement measures to ensure justice and deterrence. The committee was also briefed by the IGP Sindh on a recent case of marital rape in Karachi. In July 2025, a 19-year-old Hindu woman, Shanti, passed away in hospital after falling into a coma, allegedly following brutal sexual violence inflicted by her husband only days after their marriage. Despite a reporting delay of nearly 20 days, the Sindh Police completed its investigation, submitted the challan in court, and secured the husband's confession. While appreciating the swift police action, the committee strongly condemned the brutality of the incident. Meanwhile, the committee also conveyed heartfelt condolences and expressed solidarity with the victims of the floods in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province. The meeting was attended by members Aqeel Malik, Shaista Pervaiz Malik, Khawaja Izharul Hassan, Shahida Begum, Shahida Rehmani, MNAs, and senators, Fawzia Arshad and Khalida Ateeb. Senior officers from relevant federal ministries, divisions, and provincial governments were also present in the meeting. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
3 days ago
- Business Recorder
IWT: PCA's ruling
The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration's (PCA's) August 2025 decision on the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is more than a dry legal pronouncement — it is a diplomatic milestone in Pakistan's decades-long efforts to safeguard its lifeline rivers from upstream interference. In its ruling, the Court declared it has full jurisdiction over Pakistan's complaint regarding India's hydropower projects on the Indus system's Western Rivers — the Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab — and that India must design such projects strictly in accordance with the treaty's specifications. The phrase 'strictly' is indeed the heart of the matter. For years, Pakistan has criticized India for bending the rules in the name of 'best engineering practices' to exert more control over water flows. The Court has now affirmed that the treaty does not permit such unilateral reinterpretation. Signed in 1960 with World Bank's mediation, the IWT divided six rivers between the two countries: three eastern rivers to India and three western ones to Pakistan. While India was allowed limited non-consumptive uses, such as run-of-river hydropower on the Western Rivers, those rights came with clear technical limits on dam designs and water storage. The Ruling by the court is a 'Legal Win' for Pakistan and a 'Political Test' for India. But, this is not the end of it. It may well be a head start for Pakistan on the long process of the dispute resolution. What lies ahead is complex and challenging. The following challenges could unfold as the process moves on: Sanctity of the court ruling and 'India's legal room to manoeuvre': The Court's decision is binding, but enforcement is a different game. India has little legal ground to 'overrule' the PCA. The IWT's own dispute resolution mechanism — agreed to by both countries — provides for binding arbitration if bilateral talks fail. What New Delhi can do is political and procedural: delay implementation through extended technical discussions, seek 'clarifications' on design changes, or partially comply with the ruling while keeping its projects largely intact. India might also use the verdict to re-open the broader debate about modernising the treaty, a move that could dilute Pakistan's hard-won protections. India's acceptance of the PCA ruling: An unconditional 'yes' is improbable. But, legally, overturning the ruling is nearly impossible; politically, India can slow-walk or sidestep compliance. India has already expressed discomfort with the arbitration path, preferring the 'neutral expert' process that offers more room for technical compromise. Accepting the ruling without challenge could be seen domestically as conceding strategic ground to Pakistan. More likely is a pattern of selective compliance — making some design adjustments with a view to appeasing the Court while ensuring that the core of India's hydropower ambitions remains unaffected. The 'Enforcement Gap' in relation to Court's ruling: The PCA cannot send inspectors or impose sanctions. Its power lies in the moral weight of international law and the political cost of open defiance. The World Bank, as treaty guarantor, can exert diplomatic pressure and even influence the flow of international development finance. Still, without active global backing, enforcement risks could become a slow grind of procedural follow-ups rather than a decisive action. Developing Scenario: In the near term, the most likely scenario is 'managed tension.' India delays, Pakistan protests, but both avoid a direct treaty breakdown. The IWT has survived wars and political crises for over six decades; neither side wants to be blamed for killing it. Yet, climate change and domestic politics are making the ground more unstable. Melting glaciers, erratic monsoons, and growing populations are intensifying competition over water. If relations between the two countries take another sharp downturn — as they did after Pulwama in 2019 — water could move from being a managed dispute to an openly weaponised tool of statecraft. The nightmare scenario for Pakistan is an Indian withdrawal from or suspension of the treaty, something periodically floated in Indian political circles. Such a move would trigger a diplomatic firestorm and invite international intervention — but in a more multipolar, transactional world, that risk cannot be dismissed. A moment to 'build on' For now, Pakistan can justifiably claim a legal and diplomatic victory. But this win will only matter if Islamabad can convert it into enforceable compliance. That requires sustained engagement with the World Bank, alignment with other riparian states facing similar upstream challenges, and careful public diplomacy to keep the issue alive at international forums. For Pakistan, the stakes are existential: about 80 percent of its agriculture and a significant share of its hydropower rely on uninterrupted flows from these rivers. Any upstream alterations — even those framed as 'minor' — can disrupt planting cycles, power generation, and rural livelihoods. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
4 days ago
- Express Tribune
Minister slams India for undermining IWT
Water Resources Minister Moeen Wattoo on Thursday slammed India for attempting to "run away" from the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) in total disregard for Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) ruling earlier this week. The minister reacted to India's External Affairs Ministry statement, saying the international Court of Arbitration lacks any legal authority to make pronouncements on the Indus Waters Treaty between India and Pakistan as New Delhi has never recognised the legitimacy of the court,. A ruling from the Court of Arbitration last week backed Pakistan by saying that India must adhere to the Indus Waters Treaty in the design of new hydro-electric power stations on rivers that flow west into Pakistan. Signed in 1960, the IWT awarded three westward-flowing rivers to Pakistan and three eastward-flowing rivers to India. In 2023, Pakistan approached the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in The Hague over the design of Indian hydropower projects on rivers allocated to Pakistan. In a ruling on Monday, the PCA affirmed its jurisdiction and stated that the IWT "does not permit India to generate hydro-electric power on the Western Rivers based on what might be the ideal or best practices approach for engineering". The court added that India must adhere "strictly" to treaty specifications and "let flow" the western rivers' waters for Pakistan's "unrestricted use". Attorney General for Pakistan Mansoor Usman said the PCA had accepted Pakistan's position. However, Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal told reporters India had "never accepted the legality, legitimacy, or competence" of the court, terming its pronouncements "without jurisdiction" and devoid of legal standing. He said that India stood by its decision to hold the IWT in abeyance. Wattoo outright rejected Delhi's claim. The minister told a private news channel that India's position was baseless and wrong. "Under any article of the agreement, India or Pakistan cannot terminate this agreement," he said, adding that the PCA had already dismissed similar objections from India. "India's letter seeking modification of the treaty had no legal cover." India suspended the IWT in April following an attack in occupied Kashmir's Pahalgam that killed 26 tourists - an incident it blamed on Islamabad without evidence. Pakistan warned that any attempt to halt its water share would be an "act of war". The PCA's supplemental award in June declared India could not hold the treaty in abeyance. India again said it did not recognise the court's authority. Responding to the MEA spokesperson's stance, the water minister told a digital media website: "India wants to run away from this agreement (IWT). Under any article of the agreement, India or Pakistan cannot terminate this agreement." He said India's claim was "baseless and wrong", adding that Pakistan rejected it. "The court has already said that it has the power to decide. India had made this claim before, which the court has rejected." He said a letter by India earlier in the year seeking modification in the treaty had no legal cover and the country could not unilaterally take a decision regarding the IWT.
